Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
MAJOR REPAIRS of both capitalism and socialism can make them quite and quite humanistic.
All the ISMs theoretically look quite acceptable, but in practice there is a catastrophic final picture on the general issues of the life of civilization-when solving problems of survival and development.
Words and Deeds are very different everywhere and everywhere. Starting with the promises of all parties, deputies, parliamentarians – of all countries and times-this is the main source of all catastrophes.
I believe that there is no simple answer to this question, you can turn to the wisdom of Confucius, who gave the definition of humanity, I do not like to give quotes in the comments, this is appropriate in the article. Those interested can easily find this information on the Internet. The humanity of capitalism, its adherents, affirm great opportunities for implementation, but they are silent about the different starting opportunities of different groups of society. I am not a supporter of capitalism, but I must admit that the criteria of humanity are too high and even socialism in the USSR did not meet them in all respects, what to say about modern capitalism both here and in the West. I would rather talk about justice, here capitalism is definitely not fair. I consider charity to be absolutely humane, and it is very developed in the old capitalist countries, among the rich. The poor themselves help us, and billionaires seek support from the state.
This has already been said. The” humanity ” of capitalism rests on the profit it makes. The higher the profit, the greater the crimes that capitalism will commit. The highest profit comes from wars and their consequences, with the interception of power. Therefore, capitalism often contributes to the preparation and initiation of wars. As it was, for example, in the Second World War (our WWII). The most recent countries are Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria…
If you take the definition from Wikipedia, then capitalism is anti-human. Because it is based on increasing capital and generating profit.
But since there are not only economic relations in society, but also political ones, the development of society usually occurs with an increase in human rights. And capitalists have to be more humanistic.
Human nature consists of one principle of good and evil. This is exactly one beginning. The Scripture says, ” You will know good and evil, and you will be like gods.” The world was created by humans. They did it badly.
About as humanistic as the river is. It's just a river. It flows somewhere, carries its own waters, perhaps, somewhere as a result of floods, the city can be washed away. And somewhere in it fish are caught, somewhere it is spilled over the fields and fertilizes them with fresh silt.
Capitalism is neither good nor evil, and it is not human to judge it in such terms. This is a naturally formed social structure (just like a river), resulting from natural prerequisites (as the formation of a river depends on its sources and the shape of the terrain around it). Of course, the phenomenon is not eternal, the rivers also dry up. But if you compare it with communism, the communist idea turned out to be completely unviable, and trying to implement it again is completely disastrous for modern civilization.
It was capitalism that led to the kind of civilized society that we are seeing now, and looking back, we can definitely say that with all the shortcomings of capitalism, it could have been MUCH worse. And what will replace capitalism in the future-well, we'll see. Now it is difficult to think so far ahead.
Not humanistic at all. There are no prerequisites for humanity there. On the contrary: greed, unscrupulousness, greed for profit, immorality, eternal pursuit of money, exploitation of friends, the principle of “fuck another and get rich”, corruption and corruption of the authorities – this is all the basis of capitalism.
And the existence of private ownership of the means of production invariably leads to the exploitation of man by man, to the fact that the owner of these very means of production will enrich himself at the expense of others, the poor will get poorer, and the rich will get richer, and even bury more and more sick people, subjugating the authorities, officials, law enforcement agencies, etc.
Under capitalism, you won't get away with it.
And under capitalism, overproduction crises are inevitable, for example. This is when you produce tons of food, for example, but you don't want to sell it, because the price of it has fallen (because there is a lot of it), and there are crowds of hungry people around… you will not give up your food to kotoyrm, but rather destroy it – so that the price will jump again and you can cash in. On someone else's grief and on someone else's death, yeah…
Here is such humanity…
In fact, the classical capitalism described by Marx has long been absent in the world. About 120 years ago, imperialism began to replace it, but even that was reformed many times in different countries after the First World War.
I understand this question to be rhetorical. Capitalism and humanism are incompatible concepts. But at all times and in various economic formations, there have been, are and will be people who need a manifestation of humanism, which is a way of expressing their state of mind.
Capitalism is one of the forms of ownership of the means of production, a completely deranged term, far-fetched by social hypotheses. How can ownership of the means of production be humane or not? This is determined by the personal qualities of the people who own this property. One runs the business for the joy of himself and people, the other steals, kills, robs. This depends on public morals, which means that it depends on the religion that operates in society.
Once again, we have to start with the fact that no “ism” in the modern complex world can be found “in its pure form”.
In any country, you will find signs of all known types of state and several socio-economic systems.
Now about humanism. A hundred years ago, it was an abstract dream. More people were born than they could feed. The value of individual human life for the state (and what is more terrible than society) was negative. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse regulated the population. The death of a neighbor increased a person's chances of survival.
Mass family planning has turned the world upside down. People have become scarce. The value of human life began to grow. And humanism from idle dreams became the norm of life. All countries that have passed the demographic transition are developing mechanisms for saving people. Whether they are considered natural elements of the modern capitalist economy or elements of socialism in the capitalist economy is a matter of taste.
In order to become clear about the details and their purpose, you always need to start looking from afar. Let's look not at capitalism, humanism, socialism, etc. – ism, but at the history of mankind, and not biased, but as objectively as possible.
The story begins with the creation of the world by God. No matter how much atheists convulse, this is confirmed very simply: the vast majority of people are believers, and this cannot be dismissed as an annoying fly.
The world was created to praise God, not a perverse God, but a loving one. This is natural, since the logical meaning of a creature's life is love for its creator. This is its only path to perfection.
Initially, there were no kings: people lived under the direct control of God (which is also logical, the creature lives under the control of its creator – this is its guarantee of existence), then prophets. But then people did not want to live under the rule of God, they wanted a king, that is, a leader from their own relatives, like animals. This was the second grossest mistake of the creature (the fall and not repenting of it is the first).
Further, people began to make various attempts to achieve justice in the arrangement of a deliberately unfair social system. We see the result to this day.
Based on the story, you can try to determine its logical end. Man, in an attempt to maximize the logic of his life without God, will come to a bestial state. This is his desired end goal. This, in particular, is confirmed by modern culture: the undisguised chanting of animal instincts: to eat and get laid.
But God will not allow this to continue indefinitely, if only because there will be people who will be alien to it, who do not want to become beasts, but want to be God's. And it is also logical to stand up for your loyal and loyal friends.
If we take the definition of capitalism as an economic system of production and distribution based on private property, universal legal equality and freedom of enterprise. The main criterion for making economic decisions is the desire to increase capital, to make a profit, which gives everyone the right and opportunity to do what brings money. On the one hand, it seems to me that it is a bit inhumane to force people, especially creative ones, into the framework and boundaries of monetary relations and so on, but it still turns out to be more humane than in many other economic systems.
Exactly as much as it makes a profit. The clearest example is the Greta Tumberg business project. The system mimics anything, humanism is no exception.
As usual, when discussing such issues, they forget to agree first – what kind of” humanism ” is it? “equality in poverty” – is it more humane than inequality with average satisfaction? Dragging all the careless and inept by the ears is more humane than allowing those who are successful to develop freely?
Obviously, the answer will depend on the position of the respondent. As experience shows, if we take the average level of well – being of citizens, then capitalism at its best is significantly “more humane” than the best examples of socialism.
If you think from a purely ideological point of view, the answer depends on the division of certain ideas. As far as “socialism” is concerned, the matter is further complicated by the immanent falsity of the “socialist” regimes, which persistently presented themselves as the wrong person. what they really were. And the most powerful social demagoguery in which was the most important condition for their existence.
In “theoretical socialism” you can say anything you want. But in the real world, there were absolutely monstrous modes.
The argument that capitalism is more humane than other forms of relationships is propaganda. Suffice it to say that almost all countries of the world are entering capitalism. During the existence of the USSR, capitalism, in comparison with Soviet Russia, tried to adopt, in order to pacify the discontented working masses, a more or less human form (social work and all that). After the collapse of the USSR, an example of the failure of the socialist / communist course in the state was presented to the whole world, which allowed the capitalists to tighten the once-weakened nuts. Now the capitalist elite has carte blanche. The anti-propaganda of communism is the work of capitalism. If so, then he needs the unconditional trust of the working class. Capitalism assumes that a single person or group of people is at the financial flow-this is the elite. It is in their interests to establish conditions in their production facilities, in neighboring cities and in their own countries, under which nothing could disturb the effective functioning of the established system.�
What can I say, the capitalist always needs more. This is the most insecure person in the world and his influence is aimed at establishing a stable, satisfying system at the moment, no matter what it takes, because he has a family.
Historically, capitalism goes back to the ethics of Protestantism, which presupposes serving God through the realization of one's beruf – that is, a predetermined “function”. That is, in fact, you are fulfilling the divine will through daily work. If you are a merchant, then you earn money not for the sake of getting rich, but for the sake of fulfilling the purpose given to you by God – to be a merchant. At the same time, modesty is declared in behavior, consumption, even appearance – you can look at the portraits of Rembrandt-the clothes are very simple, although of high quality. (you can read more about all this in Weber's “Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism”). Capitalism of this kind is, in general, humanistic, since it is built on Christian morality, and not on the ethics of consumption.�
However, five centuries have passed since the birth of capitalist relations – and it has been greatly transformed. Protestant ethics were left behind, and market relations became a universally established fact of our time. And all the claims made by Marx against capitalism in the mid-nineteenth century remained (in part and still remain) valid – the exclusion of workers from the results of their labor, the absence of any guarantees (medical, insurance, etc.), the exclusion of the working class from the political administration apparatus, the suppression of the labor movement by force (the use of violence by the state), and so on, and so on. Do not think that this is nonsense – the enormity of the situation of the lower class was fully realized by non – socialist people-read Dostoevsky or Dickens.�
Market relations pushed technological progress far ahead – capitalists invested in promising ideas – they could make money on them. The telegraph, the pan-European railway system, electricity, a modern type of sewage system, etc. – all this appeared on the money of capitalists. In parallel, there was a further dehumanization of the working class, reducing people to the state of cogs in the mechanism, any of which can be thrown out and put in its place another similar one. The same goes for wars – the most monstrous border wars of the centuries – the Transvaal and Orange Wars, the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War, after all – occurred precisely as wars for the interests of capitalists-for example, colonial wars (of course, I exaggerate a little, but influential capital holders played a role in unleashing these wars).�
As a result, this resulted in a series of national and socialist revolutions in Europe, the most successful of which was the February revolution in Russia – and then the October revolution. The fact is that by that time the socialists were divided into radical ones who demanded a complete reorganization of the state, and those whom Lenin called “opportunists” – those who agreed with the current conservative government and sought to participate in the political struggle on an equal basis with the liberal parties (and liberalism is, of course, a capitalist ideology, we must not forget this), and improve the life of the working class from within the current system. So, partly in Europe it was the “liberal socialists” who came to power, while in Russia it was the radical ones who completely rebuilt society (although in part they still had to return, albeit temporarily, to the capitalist model in the form of Nep). And, I must say, it achieved great success-a constitution was adopted, a universal electoral system, equality in the rights of women and men (let me remind you that in capitalist countries the suffragette movement was still suppressed in the most brutal way), universal medical support, a “living wage”, support for the new radical art – thanks to the LEFT of the USSR, it was conceived in the 1920s as the most artistically progressive country in the world. However, this was achieved by a repressive method, and the dictatorship of the proletariat quickly turned into a dictatorship of the party. The policy pursued by Stalin, and later by all the leaders of the USSR, was extremely right-wing-positioning the needs of the state above the needs of man (despite the fact that socialism declalarizes a gradual movement towards the rejection of the state), depersonalization of human individuality, state violence of incredible proportions, the absence of any freedom beyond strictly defined limits, and so on. Although, of course, the achievements of the 20s were preserved – the state provided universal medical support, housing, cheap food (there was no hunger), but at the same time life within these limits turned out to be monstrously gray and crippled people's consciousness, and any attempt to go beyond them was either forcibly suppressed or left in marginal layers of culture.
Meanwhile, Capitalist society was developing its own conflicts. On the one hand, the right-wing capitalist movement in Europe developed into National Socialism and Fascism, extreme right-wing movements. On the other hand, workers ' rights were won by them in a long and extremely difficult struggle, and the unwise actions of politicians led to such catastrophes as, for example, the great depression, which brought a prosperous state to the brink of poverty. After the war, it turned out that the center of passion in America and Europe shifted to pro-communist circles. Why is that? Capitalism presupposes the primacy of a single class that owns capital. The class maintains its primacy by using propaganda, xenophobia, and manipulating the masses. It quickly became clear that in a consumer society, not only the working class is devalued, but people in general are reduced to the service that they provide – sexual (how often do we think about how porn stars live and what they are experiencing at the moment? Or why do any ads use half-naked women's bodies?), physical, intellectual, and so on. Meanwhile, a model of endless consumption is imposed on a person, in which he is locked not by external forces, but by himself – the requirement to comply with the norms of a conservative society and strive for abstract success all his life turns a person into biomass. At the same time, various forms of chauvinism – racial, gender, religious-are artificially cultivated and then reproduced by the masses. Hatred of LGBT people, whose rights movement has always been left-wing, is connected precisely with the model of xenophobia imposed by capitalism. It was precisely the left – wing movement that resisted-hippies, punks, leftist art and philosophy (Foucault, Sartre, Warhol, Marcuse), the feminist movement, which was originally and always left-wing. All this is true, in general, up to the present time. It turns out that modern capitalism is by definition inhumane, and is constantly trying to work out a way to humanize itself (see, for example, the concept of Tolerance by Isaiah Berlin), while on the other hand there is an extremely human model of socialism, constantly forced to defend itself, and therefore resorting to the rhetoric of violence, and, in particularly severe cases of collision with unsuitable national soil ,жд
What is the point of all this bedsheet – both capitalism and socialism in different epochs were extremely different, faced different problems and reacted differently to them. It is difficult to say which system is more humane – rather, the most humane at the moment is the intermediate version of social democracy, which, however, has its serious drawbacks, for example, the ease of consolidating elites and leaning to the right – exactly what we see in the example of the Putin regime. In any case, it is important not to forget that these are just theoretical models that offer their own model for describing the processes taking place in society, and they should be used appropriately, that is, not to impose one of the regimes chosen according to the criterion of “humanity”, but to try using these theoretical models to solve specific problems facing society – inequality, collision with Another, and so on.
Actually, again, some of the answers contradict science and theory. Communist relations of labor and distribution: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. This idea has long been transformed and implemented in socialist countries, where socialist and labor (labor, people's) parties have been in power for many decades: Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. The fact that it was not possible to build communism in a single country in the 20th century does not mean that capitalism is more humane than communism. Distribution according to needs, and production according to abilities is just around the corner. Many countries already have restrictions on working hours, the number of producers, the license limit, and so on to avoid overproduction, price competition, and so on. And these are not capitalist tools. Try to come to Switzerland and open your own cheese factory in the cheese-making region… With further growth in labor productivity, production efficiency, automation, robotization and cybernatization (if I say this word correctly) , there will be a really sharp reduction in working hours in its modern sense, and there will be so many consumer products that their value will be measured not by money, but by something else… When society, the means of production will grow to such communism, which now looks utopian, is unknown…. but what it will be is 100 %. And then, if you want a communist society, from the word communis – general, it will be much more humane than a capitalist one.
If we answer by distancing ourselves from popular ideologies, then capitalism is only as humanistic as the actions of the people who make up the capitalist system are humanistic. But such an answer does not clarify the degree of humanity, right? So we need to compare capitalism with other types of social structure.
I will compare it with socialism. In the latter, there is a certain minimum standard of living guaranteed to a person, but there is no possibility of achieving ultra-high consumption. In the former, on the contrary, there is no guaranteed standard of living, and there are opportunities for overconsumption.
If we understand humanism as charity, and in fact, help to the needy and distressed, then socialism is undoubtedly a more humanistic system. With the caveat, however, that people in the capitalist world will always help other people in circumvention of state procedures, as, indeed, under socialism.
If we recall Boris Groys, the main difference between capitalism and socialism is that under capitalism, the medium of relations is money, and under socialism – language. Money is numbers, zeros, and ones. How humane are they? And how humane is the language? And how humane is humanity itself? What's going on anyway? Do we exist in fact or hypothetically? Relevant or potential? What if we're wrong? Is it possible? Or is it impossible? And if I find it?
Capitalism is humanistic in that it has brought relations between people out of the darkness of arbitrariness and put them on a contractual basis – yes, from now on everything has a price and there is no need to ingratiate, beg, humiliate yourself any more. Socialism / communism has driven man back into arbitrariness, subjecting him/her to the dictatorship of the proletariat, the organizers of socialization and distribution. By depriving man of his property, communism has deprived man of a normal and dignified life, protection and foundation.
Capitalism is humanistic in that it has given a person freedom of choice – from now on, a person determines his own life and fate. Capitalism in general gave man freedom. In order to exist, capitalism needs free people – those who can work freely and buy goods and services freely, who are both producers and consumers at the same time. Capitalism recognized the individual's rights and freedom to defend them, and for this purpose guaranteed the individual the freedom of speech, assembly, meetings, and association.
Socialism / communism denied a person freedom of choice and freedoms in general, even the freedom to live, which began to depend on someone's suspicions – ideological deviations, “counter-revolutionary”, unreliability, dissent. Communism persecutes a person, turns his life into an endless struggle – for food, clothing, for a minimum of dignity, for thoughts and ideas. Communism is based only on fear of it. Communism relies on coercion and violence to survive. When communism invites you to heaven, it leads you to the GULAG. The old and new defenders of communism are now waving their hands, saying that everything in the USSR and other social countries was wrong, they made a mistake, everything should have been different, and again they are calling for a new paradise, refusing to recognize the obvious that the large-scale 70-year Soviet experiment showed: socialization, redistribution, planning, state prices-all this leads to a dark impasse of” good old ” arbitrariness and violence;
Unlike other economic models, capitalism began to pay for labor.
Capitalism has become the basis for scientific and technological progress.
Capitalism has created wealth, which it constantly multiplies; it has created the material basis of human dignity. Wealth and prosperity are not about buying clothes in supermarkets; they are about increasing life expectancy, reducing child mortality, improving health care, improving the level of education in society, better and more diverse food, and clean drinking water. This is the humanistic nature of capitalism.
Capitalism has not solved all the problems of man, but it has solved all the problems that others have stumbled upon.
Capitalism has opened up the world and is making it one.
When capitalism finally appears in Russia, then our people will be able to realize their great potential, which will earn respect and recognition among other nations.
not by how much. it has nothing to do with humanity at all.�
humanism tends towards socialism. socialism in Berdyaev's understanding is a paradise on Earth, just as people are equal before God , so they are equal under socialism. For Marx, socialism had to be transformed into positive humanism – a social system that was initially guided by the principle “everything humane is reasonable, everything reasonable is humane”, and this is the principle of social-humanism.�
capitalism, on the other hand, involves the constant struggle and survival of the fittest.